The Fetus Fetishists Strike ...

[Update 31/05/09 18:50]
So, I see that Randall Terry is out flapping his gums about how George Tiller was a mass murderer - as if that justifies some nutcase gunman shooting him in church.

I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller's killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions.
...
"Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the Law of God. We must continue to expose them in our communities and peacefully protest them at their offices and homes, and yes, even their churches."

All that this statement does is give the wingnut who shot Dr. Tiller reason to think he's some kind of hero. He's not - he's a vigilante, a murderer and a criminal ... and a man who deserves to be treated far worse than how he treated Dr. Tiller.

The Fetus Fetishists have lost the moral high ground. It is time to recognize that their judgmentalism is giving the worst society has to offer the license to kill. Directly or indirectly, they are responsible for what happened in Kansas today.
[/Update]
Come and talk to me about the "angry left" sometime ... last I checked the pro-choice lobby doesn't go around murdering doctors in cold blood.

It's things like this that make me downright furious most days, and today more so than average.

When we hear politicians musing about introducing abortion controls, they are pandering to the same wingnut extremism that thinks it's some kind of heroism to gun people that offend them down in the streets.

This isn't the first time that a doctor has been murdered, simply because he provides women with abortion services. It is time for politicians in both Canada and the United States to condemn these acts of violence, and close the door to the anti-abortion crowd.

H/T: Feministe

Calgary Is Being Punished By Stelmach

The mendacity of the Stelmach tories continues to unfold in Alberta. The latest example comes to us in the form of a refusal to fund a piece of equipment for prostate surgeries.

Two veteran Tory MLAs are taking issue with the government-created health superboard's move not to fund Calgary's only surgery laser for enlarged prostates, with one branding it a "dumb decision."

The specialized laser was packed up Friday at Rockyview Hospital after the Alberta Health Services superboard said it won't pay to operate the $100,000 machine.

At the Alberta Progressive Conservative policy convention Saturday in Calgary, several city MLAs --including Health Minister Ron Liepert--said it wasn't their role to micromanage the board.
...
There are two such lasers in the Edmonton area, and one each in Grande Prairie and Medicine Hat.

Liepert's attempt to sidestep by saying that it was a decision of the "Superboard" doesn't wash. That superboard is a bunch of appointees that Liepert and Co. brought together in the first place. Second of all, this Superboard is not running a crown corporation on behalf of the crown, it is running a part of the civil service, funded entirely by the government. As such it is unquestionably directly accountable to the government. To claim an "arm's length" relationship when no such thing exists is beyond obscenely dishonest.

Actions speak louder than words,and the Stelmach government's actions to date create a significant case for a governing party that was deeply offended when Calgarians sent something other than a branded conservative to the legislature. With respect to health care in general, Liepert has shown himself to be intransigent, dogmatic and arrogant - reflecting the attitude that Blackett showed us on election day when he mused that "with such a huge majority, they could do whatever they liked".

The unlike Premier Lougheed, who took a landslide majority in the late 70s, and rightly observed that such majorities are treacherous territory for any governing party, Stelmach and his crew have long lost sight of the wisdom of Lougheed's caution - and Albertans will pay the price for the arrogance and hubris we are seeing out of a government that is out of control.

Priorities ... and Getting Them Wrong...

I see that Harper is getting ready to add another dust collector to Canada's legal libraries.

Speaking at a Canadian Jewish Congress 90th anniversary luncheon in Toronto, Mr. Harper said legislation will be introduced this week by Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan "to enable victims of terrorism to seek justice" and compensation from individuals, organizations and foreign states that support terrorism.

Why yes, what a lovely sounding idea. Let's tie up Canada's courts with lawsuits against people and powers that aren't even residing in Canada. Brilliant! I'm sure that Canada's courts have lots of spare time to deal with these lawsuits - and that's assuming that the accused party can even be brought before the courts to face these charges.

This has nothing to do with any meaningful sense of justice or improving Canada's profile on the international law stage. This is all about Harper trying to shore up his crumbling electoral support. Like any conservative, he knows that ridiculous "get tough on crime" laws that are utterly unenforceable are an easy way to make political points. Real governance, on the other hand, seems to elude this particular Prime Minister - who is obviously more about showboating and slandering his opponents than he is about actually governing Canada effectively.

Politicizing The AHRC

I don't know how I missed this one, but the second amendment to Bill 44 is perhaps even more brain damaged than the first amendment was.

In its entirety, it reads as follows:

The Bill is amended as follows:
Section 16 is struck out and the following is substituted:
16 Section 22 is amended
(a) in subsection (1)(c) by striking out “chief commissioner” and substituting “Chief of the Commission and Tribunals”;
(b) by adding the following after subsection (1):
(1.1) Notwithstanding section 21, where it appears to the director at any time that a complaint
(a) is one that could or should more appropriately be dealt with,
(b) has already been dealt with, or
(c) is scheduled to be heard,
in another forum or under another Act, the director may refuse to accept the complaint or may accept the complaint pending the outcome of the matter in the other forum or under the other Act.
(c) in subsection (2) by striking out “subsection (1)” and substituting “subsection (1) or (1.1)”.

Hmmm...so just what are they tinkering with here?

It turns out to be S.22 of the act which sets out the powers of the director to intervene in a specific case. The existing legislation reads as follows
:

Director’s powers re complaint

22(1) Notwithstanding section 21, the director may at any time

(a) dismiss a complaint if the director considers that the complaint is without merit,

(b) discontinue the proceedings if the director is of the opinion that the complainant has refused to accept a proposed settlement that is fair and reasonable, or

(c) report to the chief commissioner that the parties are unable to settle the complaint.

(2) The director shall forthwith serve notice of a decision under subsection (1) on the complainant and the person against whom the complaint was made.

So, with this amendment, what does it look like?

Director’s powers re complaint

22(1) Notwithstanding section 21, the director may at any time

(a) dismiss a complaint if the director considers that the complaint is without merit,

(b) discontinue the proceedings if the director is of the opinion that the complainant has refused to accept a proposed settlement that is fair and reasonable, or

(c) report to the chief commissioner that the parties are unable to settle the complaint.

(1.1) Notwithstanding section 21, where it appears to the director at any time that a complaint
(a) is one that could or should more appropriately be dealt with,
(b) has already been dealt with, or
(c) is scheduled to be heard,
in another forum or under another Act, the director may refuse to accept the complaint or may accept the complaint pending the outcome of the matter in the other forum or under the other Act.
(2) The director shall forthwith serve notice of a decision under subsection (1) or (1.1). on the complainant and the person against whom the complaint was made.

This is interesting, because it is essentially means that the director can decide that any case can - or should - be heard in another venue.

I suspect that there are a lot of potential problems with this. The most obvious that I can see is the prospect of ministerial interference. It would not be hard for the minister to walk into the director's office one day and insist that a high profile (and politically awkward) complaint is "best heard in the courts". (Theoretically, any case can be heard in court, I suspect)

This completely undermines the purpose of Human Rights commissions in the first place. It is rare that discrimination happens on a scale that most people would say merits the cost involved in a court challenge. For that matter, few people have the financial resources to sustain a long term challenge in the first place. One of the intentions of the HRC's is to provide an avenue of appeal that does not bear the same kind of costs that a court challenge would.

According to Blackett, this is just meant to allow the commission to dismiss "frivolous" cases, but somehow, I'm beginning to suspect that this is meant for other, more insidious reasons.

This Is News?

More seriously, it's about time that others start calling Harper out for being a nasty piece of work.

The fact that Harper is busy focusing on Ignatieff for personality assassination instead of trying to govern this country through a serious economic downturn is a sad, unfortunate statement of a Prime Minister whose priorities are sadly misdirected.

H/T: Darryl Raymaker

Bill 44 - Brain Damaged and Going Forward

If the reports on the news this morning are correct, Bill 44 went ahead last night with at best minor amendments. (Sadly, none of the online outlets have stories posted to confirm this, so I have had to refer to the tabled amendments.

The Bill is amended as follows:
A Section 9 is amended in the new section 11.1
(a) in subsection (1) by striking out “explicitly with religion, sexuality or sexual orientation” and substituting “primarily and explicitly with religion, human sexuality or sexual orientation”;
(b) by adding the following after subsection (2):
(3) This section does not apply to incidental or indirect references to religion, religious themes, human sexuality or sexual orientation in a course of study, educational program, instruction or exercises or in the use of instructional materials.

I'm still suspicious of these changes. In legal terms, what constitutes "primary" and "explicit"; come to that, what constitutes "incidental or indirect"?

For example, one can hardly study Europe in the Middle Ages or Renaissance without spending a great deal of time talking about the impact of the church on society - is that "incidental"? Come to that, a discussion about the Iranian revolution in 1979 would hardly be "incidentally" about religion, would it - religion is right smack at the center of that discussion. Are those excluded in by that wording, or is notification required?

The fact is that this is such a poorly conceived piece of legislative trash that the courts are going to spend decades deciding what the parameters really are ... and it will have done nothing except waste resources for no better reason than to attempt to appease the sensibilities of those offended by having to recognize GLBT people as legal equals.

I think I'll leave the rest to Rick Bell to express disgust with the whole ridiculous farce that is Alberta's government:

Meanwhile, Liberal Leader David Swann figures Ed's outfit "don't get what human rights are about."

They don't get what a lot is about, but when has that stopped them before?

"This is the worst of politics," says Swann, a man who obviously hasn't clocked enough kilometres through the Toryland trenches.

It has been worse and it will be worse again.

On his last sentence, I disagree with Rick Bell. I have never seen a government so overtly hostile to minority populations - even Don Getty's reign of stupidity wasn't malicious. This bunch is, and is becoming even more so.

Gender Surgery In Alberta

Bill Kaufmann's latest column summarizes things quite nicely.

Altering one's physical gender would only seem a lark to those who haven't met Edwards. There was a time when even the Alberta government saw it that way.

Predictably, some Albertans citing other unfunded, vital treatments have taken out their frustrations on the province's transsexuals.

Their bitterness is misdirected.

But it's a distraction no doubt welcomed by a government whose mismanagement of the health-care system lurches between grim and gruesome.

No group of people should be subject to being "thrown under the bus" politically.